The Law Finally, some judges show some proper ticker

[Messenger]

The three flogs went into the proceedings with all guns blazing in order to appease the right wing rednecks as you'd expect, but under questioning retracted three of the most egregious comments.

The remarks put about that the courts can't take criticism are arrant nonsense. They cop it all the time from those who have an issue with authority, those who feel aggrieved in some way or another, or just campaigners like Bolt.

The courts generally don't have an issue with criticism so long as it does not undermine the dignity of the court, reflect adversely on their independence or interfere with the normal course of justice.

Still believe the three will get a tongue lashing which hopefully will act as a deterrent to other flogs attempting to bring the courts into disrepute.

If they ministers are found in contempt, could they be ruled ineligible to hold a seat in parliament?

 

[Donners]

Does it matter that in this case they are correct? Why anyone who plans an act of terrorism should ever see the light of day again is a joke.

So an 18-year-old with no prior criminal history should be locked up for life for plotting an attack which he may or may not have actually carried out.

What sentence, then, should be imposed on those who actually take a life? Surely a theoretical life cannot be worth more than an actual one? Mandatory life for murder as well, then? (No more pleas for such offences, of course, to the detriment of the family of the deceased.) What other crimes should attract such a penalty?

If they ministers are found in contempt, could they be ruled ineligible to hold a seat in parliament?

Possibly. It arguably falls under s44 of the Constitution, but Contempt is a unique offence. It'd be a drawn out fight if it came to that. Ironically, that would then reverse the issue of the concern over separation of powers, as a judicial decision could bring down the government.

 

[scoman]

So an 18-year-old with no prior criminal history should be locked up for life for plotting an attack which he may or may not have actually carried out.

What sentence, then, should be imposed on those who actually take a life? Surely a theoretical life cannot be worth more than an actual one? Mandatory life for murder as well, then? (No more pleas for such offences, of course, to the detriment of the family of the deceased.) What other crimes should attract such a penalty?

Yes its inadequate. Its not an crime of passion, its not a domestic issue, its not someone having a meltdown, its not because someone is mentally ill. Its a calculated, plan to kill multiple innocent people. A plan to cause maximum damage, not only on those unfortunate to be killed or injured but on our way of life.
Anyway feel free to defend those who are desperate to destroy us all you like. Because that will certainly change their mindset. You know as well as I do that they couldnt give a rats whatever. And dont give me the 'we are better than that' rubbish. I know we are. But we dont have to be soft and/or stupid. Once someone plots to damage our people and way of life, they are done.

 

[AM]

If they ministers are found in contempt, could they be ruled ineligible to hold a seat in parliament?

Possibly. It arguably falls under s44 of the Constitution, but Contempt is a unique offence. It'd be a drawn out fight if it came to that. Ironically, that would then reverse the issue of the concern over separation of powers, as a judicial decision could bring down the government.

Section 44 of the Constitution does provide for a person to be "incapable of being chosen or of sitting as a senator or member of the House of Representatives" if - among other things - he/she " .......has been convicted and is under sentence, or subject to be sentenced, for any offence punishable under the law of the Commonwealth or a State by imprisonment for one year or longer"

So the Supreme Court could refer the matter for prosecution if it felt the response from the three unwise monkeys was completely unacceptable. The can of worms that would follow that course of action - putting to one side the likely appeals - would be fraught I'd suggest.

Interesting 'The Australian' immediately saw the wisdom of contrition let's hope the three unwise monkeys get to that point too - and quickly.

 

[Messenger]

Section 44 of the Constitution does provide for a person to be "incapable of being chosen or of sitting as a senator or member of the House of Representatives" if - among other things - he/she " .......has been convicted and is under sentence, or subject to be sentenced, for any offence punishable under the law of the Commonwealth or a State by imprisonment for one year or longer"

So the Supreme Court could refer the matter for prosecution if it felt the response from the three unwise monkeys was completely unacceptable. The can of worms that would follow that course of action - putting to one side the likely appeals - would be fraught I'd suggest.

Interesting 'The Australian' immediately saw the wisdom of contrition let's hope the three unwise monkeys get to that point too - and quickly.

While I'm not advocating having the government grind to a halt over a contempt charge, I doubt those three will learn anything from an apology. If anything it will reinforce their view and they get to be heroes amongst their base.

 

[FredLeDeux]

While I'm not advocating having the government grind to a halt over a contempt charge, I doubt those three will learn anything from an apology. If anything it will reinforce their view and they get to be heroes amongst their base.

The Australian will simply wait until the relevant appeals by the alleged terrorists (or any re-trials) are completed, then rinse and repeat its more or less permanent campaigns against chimerical "activist" and "hard left" judges.

 

[CM86]

The Australian will simply wait until the relevant appeals by the alleged terrorists (or any re-trials) are completed, then rinse and repeat its more or less permanent campaigns against chimerical "activist" and "hard left" judges.

"Don't shoot the messenger".

But it's the ABC's fault.

 

[Snake_Baker]

While I'm not advocating having the government grind to a halt over a contempt charge, I doubt those three will learn anything from an apology. If anything it will reinforce their view and they get to be heroes amongst their base.

Inevitably, the more they isolate themselves as some naughty private school boys club, the more they isolate themselves from the broader community.

Conservative politics as we have known it, is in its death throes. The political void has opened up and the people are waiting for viable alternatives to enter the void. Sooner or later, it will be filled.

 

[Crankyhawk]

Inevitably, the more they isolate themselves as some naughty private school boys club, the more they isolate themselves from the broader community.

Conservative politics as we have known it, is in its death throes. The political void has opened up and the people are waiting for viable alternatives to enter the void. Sooner or later, it will be filled.

A significant proportion of the population (maybe not a majority) will still identify as conservative and will see judges as out of touch, that foriegn cultures put their own at risk. All the conservative politicians can play to that base and survive if there are enough located in their seat.

While the "broader" community may be happy with how the judges/ system is working, it is unlikely to be a vote decider for them; while a victim of crime conservative may have this issue as a vote changer. So politically playing this game may work out for the 3 politicians involved.

 

[Snake_Baker]

A significant proportion of the population (maybe not a majority) will still identify as conservative and will see judges as out of touch, that foriegn cultures put their own at risk. All the conservative politicians can play to that base and survive if there are enough located in their seat.

I expect this "significant portion" to be dead & buried in 25 years time. Long may they rot in the ground.

The age of conservatism is coming to an end.

While the "broader" community may be happy with how the judges/ system is working, it is unlikely to be a vote decider for them; while a victim of crime conservative may have this issue as a vote changer. So politically playing this game may work out for the 3 politicians involved.

Sows ear >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> silk purse.

Bravo!

 

[AM]

While I'm not advocating having the government grind to a halt over a contempt charge, I doubt those three will learn anything from an apology. If anything it will reinforce their view and they get to be heroes amongst their base.

It's a good point. You'd hope that at least they'd be cognisant of any live hearings when contemplating commenting and choose a form of words that is less inflammatory.

I guess it would focus a few minds if the highly improbable matter of disqualification came seriously into play.

As an aside, my guess is it was the chorus of members of parliament that caused the judiciary to draw the line in the sand.

The Australian will simply wait until the relevant appeals by the alleged terrorists (or any re-trials) are completed, then rinse and repeat its more or less permanent campaigns against chimerical "activist" and "hard left" judges.

The right wing News Corp journalistic trolls are already in campaign mode. Sadly, it will be ever thus.

"Chimerical"! Love it Fred

 

[Malifice]

Have a nice night with the manipulative snake man. Don't have a mind of your own? Who's shouting tonight?

This post is pure ad hominem. Please cut it out mate. Lets talk about the topic at hand.

 

[Malifice]

While I'm not advocating having the government grind to a halt over a contempt charge, I doubt those three will learn anything from an apology. If anything it will reinforce their view and they get to be heroes amongst their base.

I sense a claim of the defence of Parliamentary privilege by the three summonsed by the Court.

 

[HairyO]

“The courts of justice are not immune from public criticism,” Mr Turnbull said. “The courts cannot be and are not immune from criticism which may extend to robust observations of a particular decision or penalty. Now that is not my words, they are the words of Justice Forrest of the Victorian Supreme Court in a case only last year."

Justice Forrest is the first witness for the Defence?

More importantly, why did The Age and ABC and Guardian all use the first part of Turnbull's comment, but leave off the bit where he attributed this quote to a Victorian Supreme Court Judge?

The Guardian even decided to have the headline be about Labor demanding Turnbull explain his comment. Of course he did explain his comment. he was quoting a Victorian Supreme Court Judge.

Why would the ABC, Age, and Guardian all deliberately only tell half a story? They wouldnt be trying to beat up a story against the Prime Minister would they?

 

[IKnowtheDog]

I sense a claim of the defence of Parliamentary privilege by the three summonsed by the Court.

Am pretty sure Parliamentary Privilege only applies to comments made within the house. Eg any defamatory comments such as "you sleep with boys" made on the steps of Parliament would not be protected by privilege.

An interesting argument could also be made that if MPs are not able to comment on judges sentencing, then judges should not be able to comment legislation introduced or passed by Parliament.

 

[Malifice]

Am pretty sure Parliamentary Privilege only applies to comments made within the house. Eg any defamatory comments such as "you sleep with boys" made on the steps of Parliament would not be protected by privilege.

From memory, the privelege may actually be broader than just comments formally made while the House is in session. I could be wrong though. The only thing I can find is the Parliamentary Privileges Act 1987 which provides for freedom of speech in parliamentary proceedings. ‘Proceedings’ are defined in subsection 16(2) of the Act pretty broadly (and include things 'incidental' to those proceedings). Probably not broad enough to cover this through.

There is also s49 of the Constitution (Privileges etc. of Houses)

'The powers, privileges, and immunities of the Senate and of the House of Representatives, and of the members and the committees of each House, shall be such as are declared by the Parliament, and until declared shall be those of the Commons House of Parliament of the United Kingdom, and of its members and committees, at the establishment of the Commonwealth.'​

If the statements can be construed in a manner that means they 'relate to proceedings in parliament' maybe they can raise it as a defence. It looks doubtful though.

Donners maybe you know more about this than me?

An interesting argument could also be made that if MPs are not able to comment on judges sentencing, then judges should not be able to comment legislation introduced or passed by Parliament.

Seeing as they are the ones tasked with interpreting and applying that legislation, this would be very strange indeed.

 

[Donners]

Afraid not; haven't touched constitutional law since uni, and have no intention of doing so!

 

[Malifice]

Afraid not; haven't touched constitutional law since uni, and have no intention of doing so!

The girlfriends old man is a member of the Judiciary. Might ask him when I see him next.

And yes, I realise my girlfriend is a career killer. I either marry her or change career.

 

[scoman]

I expect this "significant portion" to be dead & buried in 25 years time. Long may they rot in the ground.

The age of conservatism is coming to an end.



Sows ear >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> silk purse.

Bravo!

Im hope I'm still around in 25years as well as any conservative leaning friends, associates and family I may have. Is that ok by you?

 

[Frank Bunn]

Nope. The court needs to arrive at it's findings.

Why do you engage in such discussions if you are completely clueless? Do you think we are here to provide you a basic education about matters that are freely available on the internet?

I asked rhetorical questions. It's clear that the opinions of the '3 clowns' and the Australian people have no influence over the Victorian Supreme Court. Judges are expected to put prejudicial material to one side, and are not considered to be at risk of improper influence.

The nature of prosecutions for terrorism-related offences should not be beyond discussion by our elected representatives and the general public.

 

[Snake_Baker]

I asked rhetorical questions. It's clear that the opinions of the '3 clowns' and the Australian people have no influence over the Victorian Supreme Court. Judges are expected to put prejudicial material to one side, and are not considered to be at risk of improper influence.

The nature of prosecutions for terrorism-related offences should not be beyond discussion by our elected representatives and the general public.

See this blindfold?

It's there for a reason.

 

[HairyO]

See this blindfold?

It's there for a reason.

Its okay for judges to go and invent implied rights. Its not okay for Politicians to criticise this overreach. Despite the fact that it is the politicians who create the laws which the judges are supposed to enforce.

You seemed happy to quote everything I said earlier, yet totally ignored the bit where the ABC, Age and Guardian were deliberately trying to create a drama from something Turnbull said, despite it being a quote by a Victorian Supreme Court Judge who said that the Courts are not immune from criticism and should be the receiver of robust discussion.

 

[Snake_Baker]

Its okay for judges to go and invent implied rights.

Speechless.

 

[FredLeDeux]

Its okay for judges to go and invent implied rights. Its not okay for Politicians to criticise this overreach. Despite the fact that it is the politicians who create the laws which the judges are supposed to enforce.

You seemed happy to quote everything I said earlier, yet totally ignored the bit where the ABC, Age and Guardian were deliberately trying to create a drama from something Turnbull said, despite it being a quote by a Victorian Supreme Court Judge who said that the Courts are not immune from criticism and should be the receiver of robust discussion.

The interesting thing about that Turnbull interview was his dishonesty.

He went to the trouble beforehand to get someone to look up for him a 2016 Vic Supreme Court judgement by Forrest, and also a 1992 High Court judgement by Mason, both of which upheld a general right to criticise Court decisions.

Yet, as a highly qualified barrister, he would clearly have known that those comments
- apply to final decisions or judgements, but
- not to judicial decisions or conduct in cases still before the courts and still awaiting final resolution, as is the situation here.

He knows perfectly well that if he had, as a barrister involved in the trial/s and/or the appeal/s, done what these 3 trogs did, he would have been up not only before the Court, but also before the Bar Council.

 

[Snake_Baker]

The 3 "trogs" in question also have law degrees.